To expect husband to pay half our expenses?

[namechangedforthis125]

DH is a great dad, does all the cooking, works full time. After an injury had to look for a desk job which pays something but as no qualifications, not enough (15k) - before injury about 25k.

Me - this year SAHM, previously marketing roles (30k+ per year). I have 3 properties rented out. They pay for themselves with a little left over, we rent ourselves. We have a prenup and properties are going straight to our DS via trust.

Nearest FT childcare is £1850 pm which basically stops me from working. He pays bills and that's it, I pay 2 days of childcare + rent (1450£) + car insurance (1k a year) + holidays. Out of MY personal savings.
He doesn't see the problem. AIBU to expect him to cover the cost of half the expenses?

My savings are quickly going down and I'm worried about what will happen where they are gone. He was paying only 2 bills I kicked off big time and he took 9 extra on (think small stuff like TV licence).

To clarify neither of us go out or have luxuries aside from holidays. We have agreed to relocate to a different city to lower the rent cost once our contract is over, but that still doesn't solve the issue of him
Not understanding that we should be going halfs.

Does it get easier once kids each 3 years old and have funded hours at nursery? AIBU to be annoyed? I would have loved to have another kid but can't see how it would work financially if the mentality doesn't change.

all this is confusing,
forget the rentals, they are yours not his so you pay for those so not a "us" expense (and if the childcare is just so you can go deal with those then you should pay that out of your money) also i wouldnt be selling them to fund a family home unless its in my name and i paid for all the house expenses and legal agreements signed that it is fully yours,
you should both work and pay for all the "us" expenses together, put in a percentage of pay each to cover ALL family expenses ( not the rentals as they are yours so you pay anything related to those out of your income, after the family money is taken out) and both of you should get better jobs!
so if you go to work and earn 20k and he earns 10k work out how much is needed monthly for the house and children and (you put in a higher percentage as you earn higher) both put those funds in a family account to pay bills and buy food etc
he should pay his CM out of his funds
if you both have personal cars, then you should pay for those out of personal funds, if its one family car then family money pays

"There is a massive disconnect there, people who end up being the sahp generally earn the least. This is what he should be doing."

Yes, but the prenup changes things. Means he could be left high and dry if they divorced.

@Gwenhwyfar
But if they are moving into a shared home, which is not part of her business portfolio and they are married and he’s the sahp Then I don’t think she can bypass him getting half the house in a divorce. Unless the house is owned by the company, but that doesn’t seem to be what she is doing.

And actually you’re right, if things stay as they are he’s pretty fucked if they divorce! Which doesn’t really seem fair!
She seems to think about things in the event of death. But divorce is a lot more likely.

Op in the end you both seem totally incompatible with your financial and family roles. So unless you sit down and talk about that you’re heading for divorce in a few years

The prenup changes nothing if they are in the UK. They're not legally enforceable. They are sometimes upheld but generally only when the partners involved both consented to go along with it.

Divorce isn't more likely. Well under half of marriages in the UK end in divorce, meaning the rest end in death. Obv it's still worth considering though, and pre nups aren't necessarily going to be enforceable.

"Well under half of marriages in the UK end in divorce, meaning the rest end in death. "

Well yes, but maybe the poster was talking about this particular marriage rather than averages!
Is there any stats on length of marriages where neither party is ridiculously rich, but there's a pre-nup and where the DW doesn't much like the DH??

Agree with most other posts. Why are you spending a huge annual amount on childcare when you are a SAHM? Same goes for flights, I am a single parent and work full time & although annual holidays would be amazing they had to go along with Sky, which isn’t a necessity & which you are also paying for. You both need to have a major discussion with all cards on table & it’s either you go back to work & DH becomes SAHP, or you continue to be the SAHP & severely cut back on all non essentials, which Sky, flights & childcare fall into, saving thousands annually. I don’t know which part of country you live in so cannot comment on whether your rent is expensive, but, surely you can downsize & find something less expensive - we all have to cut our suit to match our cloth as the old saying goes, which certainly isn’t happening. You comment that DH works full time & does all cooking, whilst you are SAHM whilst having the privilege of 2 days childcare, what exactly is it that you do? Feeling a little “entitled” are we?

If she was, that's not a particularly useful punt and she'd be over-valuing the usefulness of her guess.

I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest....looks like this completely divides opinion.
My scenario isn't hugely different. When I met my now DH I had my own house (with mortgage) a DD in private school and a job where I get paid over 3 times more than him.
He signed a prenup (which whilst isn't legally binding is def taken into account were we to get divorced) where he agreed that whatever we made or acquired during our relationship would be split and anything prior would not.

We sat down and considered our finances. We have our own separate bank accounts and a joint bills account. I pay the mortgage and the school fees from my personal account. We split the money paid into the bills account based on the remaining disposable income each of us have. That gives us spending money that is ours and not shared
A while ago he was getting stressed at work so I suggested he resign and I pay all the bills too. He is now using his savings (built up since we were together) to fund anything he wants. When his savings run out I will probably give him an allowance
In exchange for me paying for everything he does the cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, shopping, gardening, decorating etc plus does the school run. This means that I literally do nothing other than bring the money in which means I have evenings and weekends to myself and save on a cleaner and ironer. I don't have to do the school run so I can do my work without it eating into my evenings.
He's currently doing 2 months contract work and I don't expect him to pay anything towards the bills but to use it to fund a further 6 months off for himself which simultaneously makes my life easier. For that arrangement he continues to do all the housework
So......does that make him a cocklodger? No I don't think it does, we have simply reversed the male:female set up from the 1950s.

So the differences are that the OP has taken a year off despite being the higher earner
She resents the option of going to work whilst her husband stays home and is pinning it on his lack of socialising?
She feels entitled to have 2 days off per week for herself despite being a SAHM and expects her husband to part fund the child minder (no way would I do that for DH!!)
She wants to keep her own money and her husband to pay even though he clearly can't afford it.
I respect the contribution DH makes even if it's not financial
I went back to work 3 months after DD was born because I needed the money
We work as a team I don't think OP does with her DH
If DH had a private income from another source I would absolutely expect him to contribute to bills but on a disposable income basis not on a 50/50 split

The biggest difference is that we can afford to do this, OP quite simply can't.
To have a decent style they are both going to need to work.
And when you get a job look for a new childminder - you are paying a ludicrous amount ( I am in London)

Why not sell one of the rental properties assuming this would clear any monies owing on the other 2 to generate a more helpful current income? In the longer term, you could buy a third again but I don't see how someone earning much less than you could pay in the same. I had a friend like this - she would have an active social life but often partner couldn't afford to go out so they never went out together. Not a happy partnership really.

Why is everyone responding as though the DH's wage is fixed. If someone is preventing him from getting a better paid job then the logic of him only contributing what he can afford makes sense. But that's clearly not the case. He could look for something better paid, retrain etc. If you worked hard for a good wage and went out for a meal with your mate who had decided to do a lower paid job cos she didn't want any responsibility at work I think you'd be less than impressed if she said she'd only pay a third of the bill because you earned twice as much. You would most likely think "hang on, you've eaten the same as me and it's your choice to earn less". Essentially the DH is getting all the benefits of a higher wage household but isn't paying for it. So the OP has neither the option of a DH earning a decent enough wage for her to be a Sahm or the option of going to work knowing that her DH is looking after the house and ds at home. His options seem to be to stay at home or go to work. Her options are go to work. So essentially she is funding his lifestyle choice to stay in low paid work.

Er you have more money?! He should stay at home with kids regardless of 'how sociable' he is, that's ridiculous. Why you have the houses for a trust is also bordering on insane, sell them, buy a house, save the rest and take the pressure off. This is a no brainer tbh.

Yes that's right MarieMorgan all the low paid workers out there are just lazy!!! You're ridiculous.

I haven't said they are lazy at all. I've simply said they've got a choice. I've got lots of friends who went to uni but chose to be a Sahm or do part time low paid work rather than pursue a career. That's fine but I'm not going to contribute more to their meal because I earn more. Similarly if my DH and me decided it worked best for one of us to be a Sahp and we were both happy about that then we'd share what we have coming in. But I wouldn't be happy if my DH just assumed that I would always cover the bills which is what seems to be happening here. There was a thread recently where a woman posted that she was on a low paid job she loved and was being pressed by her husband to go back to the better paid job she had before as he felt under pressure ad the major breadwinner. The consensus on that thread seemed to be that it was unreasonable for her to expect her husband to fund her choice to work in a low paid arty job I don't see why this is any different.

You can't compare a friendship with a marriage.

Why not? Are you saying it's fine for one party to take advantage of the other because they are married. I don't expect my DH to earn the same as me (I'm the major wage earner) but I do expect him to either fully do the role of Sahp or to have a reasonably paid job. I wouldn't be happy if he was Sahp but I came home to piles of ironing and a messy house (our ds is senior school age) or if he chose to work full time in a much lower paid job than he could do which puts more pressure on me to cover the bills and reduces my options for example to reduce my hours (and we still have a messy house and pile of ironing!).

It sounds like you are a ‘go getter’ to use a dated term, and he is not - is this a change since his accident or are you just incompatible in outlook? Has his approach always been rigid and failing to see unfairness? Your financials do make sense now you have explained, though I agree you should owner occupy in the future.

If he sold your houses could you afford to buy somewhere mortgage free?

Your DH should be contributing to the bills. It shouldn't all fall to you

Mariemorgan did you miss the part where the dh had to leave his job, to a desk job due to injury? maybe this is the job he wants to do, maybe this is a job his injury limitations are, yes he could re-train, however does HE want to!

I married my DH because I love him, not because of his bank balance!!! OP is expecting her dh to make ALL the changes and none for herself!

But that's my point. You all seem to be supporting his choice to do what he wants but his choices impact on the choices available to his OP. Partnership is about both people compromising. It's not about one doing whatever they want and the other picking up the slack.

Perhaps he's doing what he feels capable of doing?

Compromise works both ways. I'd suggest the first thing to look at is the unnecessary expenditure on childcare and sky, then compromise on a car which is cheaper to run and maintain, and compromise on the cost of holidays.

The OP is doing what she wants to do, wheres her compromise? And what income is she actually bringing in?

Hmm, I think you both need to discuss and work out a way forward. At the moment he simply doesn’t earn enough to pay more. If op goes back to work, that would make more sense as she earns more. Not sure why properties are in trust when you rent. Have you put them in trust already? If so, the income should be for your son.

"He could look for something better paid, retrain etc."

It doesn't work like that. If you retrain you need money for courses and money for time when you're not working (unless you do it in the evening, which would take much longer).
If it was as simple as taking a short course, nobody would be on a low income would they?

The Op has already said she would support her DH financially to retrain. Re what is the OP doing to compromise I nearly fell off my chair. The OP had been the major bread winner in the time leading up to this year off and had been covering the majority of the bills since they've been together by the sound of it. She managed to save enough to self finance her year off with her toddler son as well as continuing to cover for the fact that her DH can't afford to pay his half of the bills. She's paying all the rent for a bigger house than they need so that HIS son has a room of his own when he comes to stay and you think she's not compromising enough!

"The Op has already said she would support her DH financially to retrain. "

Doesn't really make sense as she's complaining she doesn't have enough money as it is. I'm sure it also depends how long she's willing to finance him. It can take years and years to train for a highly paid job.

"The OP had been the major bread winner in the time leading up to this year off and had been covering the majority of the bills"

Isn't that normal? If a woman earned much less than her husband and he was making her pay half, mumsnetters would be calling that financial abuse.